Joseph Benson, an english Methodist minister from the late 1700's:
Ruth 3:4. Uncover his feet — Remove the clothes which are upon his feet; thereby to awake him; and lay thee down — She was not to lie down by his side, for that would have been immodest, but at his feet, in the posture of an humble supplicant. Had Ruth acted in any respect that in those days was judged indecent or immodest, it is most likely she would have highly displeased such a grave person as Boaz appears to have been. What she did, however, seems to us indecent, and would certainly be a very improper conduct in any woman in our days; but the general character of both Naomi and Ruth forbids us to suppose that they had any sinful intentions.
David Guzik:
“Some might think this was a provocative gesture, as if Ruth was told to provocatively offer herself sexually to Boaz. This was not how this gesture was understood in that day. In the culture of that day, this was understood as an act of total submission.” If the reader accepts the literal meaning for the story, the source explains that Ruth was to uncover and lay by Boaz’s feet, just his feet, in an act of submission, lying at the foot of his bed as a servant would lay at a masters feet. The source also says that Ruth is able to be confident that Boaz will marry her, because he is her kinsman-redeemer so he has the responsibility of caring for her and giving her offspring. “Ruth came to claim a right. Boaz was her goel, her kinsman-redeemer, and she had the right to expect him to marry her and raise up a family to perpetuate the name of Elimelech. But Naomi wisely counseled Ruth to not come as a victim demanding her rights, but as a humble servant, trusting in the goodness of her kinsman-redeemer. She said to Boaz, “I respect you, I trust you, and I put my fate in your hands.””
Rav Mordechai Sabato of Yeshivat Har Etzion:
This cannot possibly be Naomi's intention, for how would this provide the "security" that she so sincerely wished for Ruth? Necessarily, then, Naomi figured that an intimate relationship at the threshing floor would lead to marriage. Knowing Boaz as she did – "For the man will not rest, but will settle the matter today" (3:18) – Naomi was convinced that Boaz would not allow his encounter with Ruth to remain an illicit relationship. Understanding Ruth's motives and acknowledging his responsibility as a goel (redeeming kinsman), he would marry Ruth.
Rav Yaacov Goldstein:
Without doubt, the story of Dovid Hamelech and Batsheva is one of the most intriguing, gossipy, and captivating stories mentioned in Tanach. It leaves the reader both baffled and shocked at the events he is told. After reading the story in Tanach at face value, one cannot stop himself from asking how a king of the stature of Dovid Hamelech can stoop so low to commit the atrocities of adultery and eventual murder to cover up his sin. The Sages expound upon this story, explaining how the sin which was committed was not as severe as it seems from scripture, and how in truth the prohibition of adultery and murder was not transgressed from a technical legal standpoint. The Zohar explains even deeper how they committed no real sin and how Dovid and Batsheva were soulmates from the time of creation. The Arizal goes further and dissects the inner working of the soul of Dovid and explains why such lust overcame him to begin with. Overall, this fascinating story takes us through the workings of the battle of a soul in this world of physical lusts and passions, and how the door of return to G-d is always open. This is perhaps the inner meaning behind why Dovid Hamelech passed away on the day of Matan Torah; to teach us all that the Torah was specifically given to people who have trials, challenges, lusts and sin, to help us overcome them and refine our souls and bodies. Dovid Hamelech was a prime example of such a person who had these challenges and eventfully overcame them to become a true Tzaddik and most revered king of our history. Dovid opened the path of return for us all.
Al HaTorah:
In evaluating David's actions with Batsheva, commentators find themselves in a quandary. On one hand, a simple reading of the text suggests that David committed two of the most severe of crimes: adultery and murder. On the other hand, since David is understood to be a righteous figure, chosen to head the monarchic dynasty, it seems unfathomable that he would act in such a manner. How can one be true to both the text and the idealized portrait of David?
R. Yonatan in Bavli Shabbat opts to exonerate David, claiming that he transgressed neither prohibition. To do so, though, he needs to make certain assumptions which are not explicit in the text and reinterpret other passages. Abarbanel, in contrast, maintains that one cannot ignore the simple understanding of the chapter. He prefers to say that David sinned egregiously, but also repented sincerely, and therein lay his greatness. Ralbag takes a middle position, claiming that David was guilty of murder but technically innocent of adultery. He nonetheless chastises David's behavior as immoral. Others say that he was not guilty of murder since Uriah was already subject to capital punishment.